From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NLc1a-0000kC-Us
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:33:38 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NLc1W-0000hy-Uw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:33:38 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57484 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NLc1W-0000hs-GX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:33:34 -0500
Received: from va3ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com ([216.32.180.13]:2757
	helo=VA3EHSOBE003.bigfish.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_MD5:16)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <Andre.Przywara@amd.com>)
	id 1NLc1W-00049w-CK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:33:34 -0500
Message-ID: <4B2B7686.7070002@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:33:10 +0100
From: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] osdep: Fix runtime failure on older Linux
	kernels
References: <1261129507-13244-1-git-send-email-andre.przywara@amd.com>
	<4B2B6855.4050909@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B2B6855.4050909@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Kevin Wolf wrote:
 >>....
>> @@ -302,12 +306,14 @@ int qemu_accept(int s, struct sockaddr *addr, socklen_t *addrlen)
>>  
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_ACCEPT4
>>      ret = accept4(s, addr, addrlen, SOCK_CLOEXEC);
>> -#else
>> +    if (ret != -1 || errno != EINVAL) {
> 
> Shouldn't this be an ENOSYS?
Oh, right you are. This was the untested part, because my glibc didn't 
have accept4. I only saw the SOCK_CLOEXEC name on this...
Fixed patch follows...

Regards,
Andre.

-- 
Andre Przywara
AMD-OSRC (Dresden)
Tel: x29712